A thread about "Nothing"

[Halbhh]

You can find Aquinas' understanding of prime matter here:

Thomas Aquinas: De Principiis Naturae: English

But Aquinas can be a tough description to wade through, so there's a more concise summary of Aristotle's description of prime matter here:

Form vs. Matter (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The traditional interpretation of Aristotle, which goes back as far as Augustine (De Genesi contra Manichaeos i 5–7) and Simplicius (On Aristotle’s Physics i 7), and is accepted by Aquinas (De Principiis Naturae §13), holds that Aristotle believes in something called “prime matter”, which is the matter of the elements, where each element is, then, a compound of this matter and a form. This prime matter is usually described as pure potentiality, just as, on the form side, the unmoved movers are said by Aristotle to be pure actuality, form without any matter (Metaphysics xii 6). What it means to call prime matter “pure potentiality” is that it is capable of taking on any form whatsoever, and thus is completely without any essential properties of its own. It exists eternally, since, if it were capable of being created or destroyed, there would have to be some even lower matter to underlie those changes. Because it is the matter of the elements, which are themselves present in all more complex bodies, it is omnipresent, and underlies not only elemental generation and destruction, but all physical changes. As a completely indeterminate substratum, prime matter bears some similarities to what modern philosophy has called a “bare particular” (see Sider 2006), although, not being a particular, it may have more in common with so-called “gunk” (see Sider 1993).

A sorta of very basic physics, really. What we see is happening because of something we don't see. That is, things like water or horses or dirt or stars -- that's composed of something basic, namely as we know now in modern physics 'baryonic matter', that is, stuff like electrons, protons, neutrons.

Elementary particles -- aka 'prime matter' in that long ago wording, before they had our more detailed knowledge.

We now have a huge amount of additional detail and types of elementary particles and knowledge now of course, but you are getting basics just to think of stuff we know as being electrons, protons, neutrons and radiation (a catch all term for many diverse types) -- a quick summary.

Contrast one aspect relating to God compared to those theologians' idea about the prime matter needed for creation: As Creator, we understand that God originates nature, and isn't therefore merely a thing inside of nature as if less than nature. He would not be thought really to rely on baryonic matter today.

Why not?

Because as the creator of the entire Universe, we can see that logically if God created the Universe, He then logically originated the physics itself that causes baryonic matter (which is just physics operating) -- 'prime matter' as they called it -- to exist, in the first place.

I just realized I need to point out something I just have as background, but would not be obvious to others usually. I'll put it in another post below, about the net energy/mass of the Universe being just zero.

 

[partinobodycular]

Then whose image and likeness are we made in?

And if that something isn't God, then what has the power to call this universe into existence from nothing?

And if that something was the universe in the first place, what is "breaking in" and performing miracles by ordering this universe to jump when it (He, actually) tells it to jump?

By way of a simple example:

If that something was the universe, what parted the Red Sea?

This is where your prime directive let's you down. It leads you to make assumptions that an otherwise rational individual wouldn't make.

 

[Halbhh]

Mainstream theory: the Total Mass and Energy of the Universe add up to Zero:

It may sound incredible, but many scientists believe that the total energy of the universe is zero. Hence, no energy needed to be “created” when the universe came into existence.

While it seems obvious that there is a huge amount of energy in the particles and radiation that pervade the universe, this energy may be balanced by negative energy caused by the gravitational attraction between the particles. As Stephen Hawking explained, when you pull two objects apart, you need to expend energy to overcome the gravity that pulls them together. As it takes positive energy to separate them, gravity must be negative energy.

If that theory is correct, then there was never any need to create energy or matter – they cancel each other out. That implies that the big bang could have started as a simple statistical fluctuation.

It also means that it may be possible to create our own big bang: just squeeze some vacuum in the right direction and bingo, a new universe, no energy required.

(Two more physicists give their own (helpful) explanations in the link.)

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does it come from? | New Scientist

 

[partinobodycular]

Elementary particles -- aka 'prime matter' in that long ago wording, before they had our more detailed knowledge.

No elementary particles aren't prime matter. Elementary particles have form. They have discernible characteristics, at least when we measure them. And even when we don't measure them they have a certain probability which limits their potential states, therefore they're not pure potentiality. Prime matter/pure potentiality must therefore be something which undergirds even elementary particles.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is where your prime directive let's you down.

Not even close.

Let's see your explanation, without contradicting the Bible.

 

[Astrid]

Except that according to metaphysists, including Aquinas, that can't possibly be true. Because for God to speak something into existence it must first have had the potential to exist. So there could never have been just God, there had to be God (Pure Actuality) and Prime Matter (Pure Potentiality).

For God to create anything it must first have had the potential to be created. Therefore not even God could create something from nothing.

" according to metaphysics"

 

[Halbhh]

No elementary particles aren't prime matter. Elementary particles have form. They have discernible characteristics, at least when we measure them. And even when we don't measure them they have a certain probability which limits their potential states, therefore they're not pure potentiality. Prime matter/pure potentiality must therefore be something which undergirds even elementary particles.

I'm just talking about what we now know is factually real from endless experiments, literally tens of thousands. Mass and energy also convert back and forth into each other. Basically, this topic is in modern knowledge only a physics topic, alone, to get the full best understanding.

Why? Because we have understanding that has been extensively tested, and refined, to be more and more accurate to reality.

See post #123 just above also, for a key aspect.

 

[renniks]

For God to create anything it must first have had the potential to be created. Therefore not even God could create something from nothing.

Why couldn't he create it from his own energy?

 

[partinobodycular]

" according to metaphysics"

I know, metaphysics seems like a rather absurd and archaic form of reasoning, but it's not without a logical basis.

For example, for something to be created it must first have the potential to be created. Would you agree? Now things like forms and causes may make little sense to us today, but for some people, aka Catholics, metaphysics is still a viable argument.

Personally I find the subject to be fascinating in spite of its seemingly naive nature, to dismiss it is to overlook millennia of human reasoning.

 

[partinobodycular]

Why couldn't he create it from his own energy?

Well then He wouldn't actually be creating it from nothing. Now I'm not personally opposed to such a possibility, but most theists are. As it comes far too close to suggesting pantheism et al.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm just talking about what we now know is factually real from endless experiments, literally tens of thousands. Mass and energy also convert back and forth into each other. Basically, this topic is in modern knowledge only a physics topic, alone, to get the full best understanding.

I agree that at its core it's simply a physics topic. I'm simply pointing out that elementary particles don't appear to be the most fundamental component of reality. They arise out of something even more primitive.

 

[Halbhh]

Well then He wouldn't actually be creating it from nothing. Now I'm not personally opposed to such a possibility, but most theists are. And it comes far too close to suggesting pantheism et al.

See post #123 for a very key piece that might not be widely known, and certainly was not known centuries ago. It obviates some key parts of the issues/questions being discussed.

 

[Halbhh]

I agree that at its core it's simply a physics topic. I'm simply pointing out that elementary particles don't appear to be the most fundamental component of reality. They arise out of something even more primitive.

That's right. We call this 'physics' also -- physicists use the word in several ways. 'Physics' is used to refer to the a) process of theorizing/discovery, b) the accumulated experimentally/observationally supported theories that seem at least approximately correct having withstood many tests, and c)...nature itself (that is, "nature is physics in action".) So, for instance, physicists will sometimes refer to "new physics" and they mean physics that hasn't yet been discovered, but is suggested to exist because of experiments/observations not perfectly fitting already supported theory.

 

[partinobodycular]

See post #123 for a very key piece that might not be widely known, and certainly was not known centuries ago. It obviates some key parts of the issues/questions being discussed.

Whatever it is about post #123 that you find so earth shattering I missed it. If it's the fact that the energy in the universe sums to zero, I don't find that to be very relevant. No matter what they sum to, things still exist, and why they exist still needs to be explained. Post #123 simply implies that they arose from...and are still equal to...nothing. Okay fine, but what caused them to exist at all?

 

[Halbhh]

Whatever it is about post #123 that you find so earth shattering I missed it. If it's the fact that the energy in the universe sums to zero, I don't find that to be very relevant. No matter what they sum to, things still exist, and why they exist still needs to be explained. Post #123 simply implies that they arose from...and are still equal to...nothing. Okay fine, but what caused them to exist at all?

You don't need something like matter or energy to create a Universe.

Ergo, that old idea of a presumed need for some material/potential -- 'prime matter' -- to already exist in order to be used to create the Universe is a mistaken idea.

But one does need an already existing physics of some kind (even if different from our physics in this Universe).

 

[Halbhh]

but what caused them to exist at all?

That's the question.

Why does anything exist at all?

Of course merely moving the starting point back by learning this Universe arose from an already existing physics still leaves the same general question, just another step back. If this Universe arose from an already existing physics, what caused that physics to exist? etc.

 

[Astrid]

I know, metaphysics seems like a rather absurd and archaic form of reasoning, but it's not without a logical basis.

For example, for something to be created it must first have the potential to be created. Would you agree? Now things like forms and causes may make little sense to us today, but for some people, aka Catholics, metaphysics is still a viable argument.

Personally I find the subject to be fascinating in spite of its seemingly naive nature, to dismiss it is to overlook millennia of human reasoning.

What has all this "metaphysics" ever accomplished?

Or all the time spent on superstitions and pseudescience ?

Seems a collossal waste of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

What has all this "metaphysics" ever accomplished?

It gave the metaphysician fifteen minutes of fame?

Or all the time spent on superstitions and pseudescience?

Seems a collossal waste of time.

Is it because you can't tell superstition & pseudoscience from the Truth?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does anything exist at all?

Because God is love.

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

And love requires an object to be loved.

And God chose ...

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[sjastro]

The link I posted (The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists) does indeed discuss science. Read the second and third paragraphs. They include a link to the book by Krauss , this paper from Physical Review --Spontaneous Creation of the Universe from Nothing, and this paper --Quantum Fluctuations in Cosmology and How They Lead to a Multiverse.

And the fourth and fifth paragraphs have numerous references to the scientific literature.

How many scientific papers must a link reference before you will allow me to use that link in this forum?

Then you clearly do not understand your own link.
It is about philosophy which refers to science not the other way around.
The author’s credentials provide a clue as to the intent of the article and has certainly not been written from the perspective of a scientist.